[PDF] Evidence for prospect-refuge theory: a meta-analysis of the findings

View - Download Evidence for prospect-refuge theory: a meta-analysis of the findings

Previous PDF

Next PDF

Dosen and Ostwald City Territ Archit (2016) 3:4

DOI 10.1186/s40410-016-0033-1

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Evidence for prospect-refuge theory: a

meta-analysis of⎷the ndings of⎷environmental preference research

Annemarie S. Dosen

and Michael J. Ostwald

Abstract

Background: Researchers in the ⎷eld of spatial psychology and environmental preference theory have tested a

range of claims about the capacity of certain spatial con⎷gurations to evoke a positive sense of wellbeing in observ-

ers. In parallel, across the landscape, urban, architectural and interior design disciplines, there has been a growing

acceptance that a balance of spatial characteristics—including prospect, refuge, mystery and complexity—is desir-

able in a natural, urban or interior environment. Yet, the evidence that the design disciplines cite for the desirability

of these characteristics is often entirely qualitative and only rarely acknowledges the results from the ⎷elds of spatial

psychology and environmental preference theory.

Methods: The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical overview of the results of quantitative research which has

been undertaken into the veracity of prospect-refuge theory and closely associated aspects of environmental prefer-

ence theory. This meta-analysis not only involves a review of the results, but also their broad classi⎷cation to develop

a more holistic picture of the ⎷eld, its ⎷ndings and any gaps. The purpose of this process is not, explicitly at least, to

assess the believability or rigour of this past research, but rather to examine and classify the ⎷ndings, both for and

against prospect-refuge theory, in a way that is useful for the design disciplines.

Results: Urban and interior studies supported the signi⎷cance of prospect, and were more neutral about refuge.

Studies related to natural environments provided evidence for the signi⎷cance of both prospect and refuge, which

has been linked to comfort, but also included evidence against and a neutral ⎷nding. More speci⎷cally for design-

ers, the results for complexity seem to con⎷rm that a degree of complexity in interior space is preferred, but they are

unclear about how much or where it should be. The results for mystery are less emphatic with the majority being

neutral or contrary.

Discussion and Conclusions: The quantitative evidence for prospect-refuge theory remains inconsistent. It is espe-

cially problematic that the results which are most commonly cited in architecture relate to studies of natural environ-

ments, not interiors or urban environments. As this paper demonstrates, the results are most valid in speci⎷c venues.

Keywords: Design assessment, Environmental preference, Prospect-refuge theory

© 2016 Dosen and Ostwald. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any

medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons

license, and indicate if changes were made.

Background

In the modern world, designers and planning authorities are responsible for creating and approving new spaces that contribute to a pleasant, healthy and sustainable environment. As such, policies, standards and proce- dures for architectural, urban and landscape designers increasingly anticipate the use of approaches which have a positive impact on human perceptions and behaviour (Shaftoe 2008; Gutman 2009). Such expectations have, since the 1970s, been driving an increased practical inter- est in explaining or predicting human responses to space and form (Perlo⎷ 2015). Indeed, theories about the way in which people perceive and respond to the spaces they inhabit can be found in the oldest architectural trea- tises and the earliest utopian works (Kruft 1994). Not

Open Access

*Correspondence: Annemarie.Dosen@newcastle.edu.au The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia Page 2 of 14Dosen and Ostwald City Territ Archit (2016) 3:4 surprisingly then, the concept that a particular combi- nation of space, form and context might have a positive e ect on a person"s emotional state is often raised in the design disciplines (Menin 2003
; Crankshaw 2008
) and it has even found its way into various guidelines and prim ers (Lidwell etal. 2003
; Lippmann 2010
Probably the most known theory for explaining envi ronmental preference in the architectural, interior and urban design disciplines is ‘prospect-refuge theory", although its application in design actually combines aspects of Berlyne"s ( 1951
) ‘arousal theory" and Kaplan and Kaplan"s ( 1989
) ‘information model" with Appleton 1975
) prospect-refuge theory. e merging of these dif ferent theories, along with several additional themes, was proposed by Grant Hildebrand ( 1991
), an architec tural historian attempting to explain the innate appeal of several of Frank Lloyd Wright"s residences. Hildebrand"s 1991
, 1999) research combined several di erent expla nations of human perceptions and emotions to propose a formula for creating an ideal environment. In the last two decades this expanded variation of pros pect-refuge theory has seemingly become accepted in the design disciplines as o ering an explanation of basic human responses to the environment, and as a type of guideline for creating ideal spaces (Kellert 2005
; Lipp mann 2010). However, Hildebrand"s argument is entirely qualitative, as too is Appleton"s, which is also, despite the way it is cited in architecture, about preferences for land scape views. Nevertheless, architectural applications of this theory are allegedly seen in the works of renowned designers including Alvar Aalto and Pritzker prize win ners Glenn Murcutt, Jørn Utzon and Peter Zumthor (Gallagher 2007). But once again, the evidence for these claims is qualitative and circumstantial. Indeed, argu ments for the ecacy of prospect-refuge theory in design only rarely identify specic quantitative or empirical studies to support their claims. is situation is the cata lyst for the present paper, which revisits the key quantita- tive evidence that is available for prospect-refuge theory (and its associated theories) to collectively assess their ndings and relevance to the design of landscapes, cities, buildings and interiors.

Originally, developed by Appleton (

1975
) for explain ing preferences for certain landscapes, prospect-refuge theory argues that we derive feelings of safety and pleas ure from inhabiting environments that o er both views and a sense of enclosure. is appeal is arguably universal and subconsciously inuences our day-to-day decision- making (Ellard 2009
). e central assumptions of pros pect-refuge theory can be connected to both Darwinian nineteenth century anthropological beliefs about survival instincts as well as to phenomenological studies that

examine environments in relation to the human body (Husserl 1973). Prospect-refuge theory also has paral

lels with arousal theory, which suggests that an increase of pleasure is felt when a person views a space or scene that has a degree of uncertainty or novelty about it, but if uncertainty is increased beyond that point, feelings of anxiety begin to occur (Berlyne 1951

In architecture and design, Hildebrand (

1991
, 1999) expanded the standard denition of prospect-refuge the ory to include four additional spatio-cognitive elements: mystery, complexity, enticement and illumination. Most of these can be traced to Kaplan and Kaplan"s ( 1989
information theory framework which suggests that envi ronments that provide increased opportunities for gath- ering or discovering information allow for improved living conditions including heightened safety. us vari ous spatio-cognitive properties associated with explora- tion potential (including complexity and mystery) also have an impact on environmental preference.

As a result of the work of Hildebrand (

1991
), a grow ing number of architectural critics and historians have used an expanded denition of prospect-refuge theory to justify or analyse architectural spaces in terms of psy chological wellbeing (Jacobsen etal. 2002; Roberts 2003;

Gallagher 2007; Unwin 2010). e resultant model of

a preferred environment has four components. First, a space must have a view or outlook, and second, that view must be at least partially framed or enclosed. ird, a degree of visual complexity enhances feelings of safety and nally, a sense of mystery (implying discoverability or directionality) is preferred (Dosen and Ostwald 2013a
Despite this apparent agreement between researchers, the capacity to understand and shape human percep tions of environments is actually a more complex and vexed topic. For example, the way people perceive envi ronments is clearly di erent depending on their physical stature and size or the personal experiences (Wohlwill 1976
; Heerwagen 1998
). Despite this, architectural and design texts tend to selectively emphasise the universal aspects of spatial experience (Kellert 2005
; Lippmann 2010
). is may not be entirely unreasonable because people do experience aspects of space, including its organisation, in similar ways (Ellard 2009
). For example, quantitative studies have shown that a close visual con nection between habitable space and nature is benecial for psychological wellbeing, recovery and stress relief (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989
; Heerwagen and Orians 1993
Studies have also observed that restricted views may cause negative reactions (Heerwagen 2008
) while visual connections might encourage movement and evoke pleasure through the exploration of space (Kaplan 1987
ere is evidence that people have a preference for spaces which feature access to nature and daylight (Ulrich 1993
and for surroundings that support social interaction and Page 3 of 14Dosen and Ostwald City Territ Archit (2016) 3:4 thereby create safer environments (Kuo and Sullivan 2001
; Ellard 2015
). In addition, a preference for water views, which are perceived as calming, is often noted in studies (Ulrich 1984
; Kaplan and Kaplan 1989
; Heerwa gen and Orians 1993
). However, Stamps ( 2006
, 2008a, b ) examined ratings for comfort and preference for both natural and built environments and concluded that the statistical signicance of prospect, refuge and luminos ity factors, in shaping emotional response, was ‘very near zero" (Stamps 2008b
, p 141). Indeed, the only factor which Stamps found had any evidence of shaping envi ronmental preference was ‘venue", being the particular type of environment where the studies were undertaken. Stamps" ndings emphasise the fact that the evidence for environmental preference theory, and especially as it relates to di erent types of designed environments—the urban, architectural and interior—is more complex than it seems. e present paper summarises and classies the results of thirty-four studies that have used quantita tive means (generally data derived from surveys, inter- views or computational and mathematical analysis) to examine the veracity of four specic spatio-cognitive factors—prospect, refuge, mystery and complexity—as part of spatial preference theory in design. e rst two of these factors are the most commonly tested, as they were the earliest proposed by Appleton ( 1975
), while research into the latter pair is less common, and is often associated with Hildebrand"s ( 1991
, 1999) identica tion of them as being equally signicant in architecture and design. Importantly, this paper does not undertake a detailed review of the methods that have been used to test these factors, as the majority have already been examined from a methodological perspective (Dosen and Ostwald 2013b
). Instead, the results of the thirty- four studies are each classied in terms of whether their ndings support the ecacy of each of the four factors, or are neutral, or contrary in terms of their role shaping environmental preference. In addition, to reviewing the results of the thirty- four studies holistically, they are also divided into three groups in accordance with their specic focus or venue of testing. e three groups are: urban studies (9%), ter ritorial studies (29%), and architectural studies (62%).quotesdbs_dbs29.pdfusesText_35

[PDF] règle de prospect urbanisme

[PDF] implantation des constructions par rapport aux limites séparatives

[PDF] règle de prospect code de l'urbanisme

[PDF] implantation des constructions par rapport aux voies et emprises publiques

[PDF] construction géométrique compas

[PDF] la regle et le compas en franc maconnerie

[PDF] construction compas cycle 3

[PDF] construction compas ce2

[PDF] construire racine de 3 ? la règle et au compas

[PDF] dessin au compas avec explication

[PDF] la règle et le compas

[PDF] cours batiment pdf

[PDF] guide pratique maçonnerie pdf

[PDF] cours de construction de batiment

[PDF] technologie de construction batiment pdf